Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...rida Constitution exempt a Florida homestead, where the debtor acquired the homestead using non-exempt funds with the specific intent of hindering, delaying, or defrauding creditors in violation of Fla. Stat. § 726.105 or Fla. Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30? Havoco of America, Ltd....

...We have invoked equitable principles to reach beyond the literal language of the exceptions only where funds obtained through fraud or egregious conduct were used to invest in, purchase, or improve the homestead. [12] *1029 APPLICABILITY OF SECTIONS 726.105, 222.29, AND 222.30 TO THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION Section 726.105, Florida Statutes (2000), of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act provides in pertinent part: Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors.— (1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a...

...Turner, 426 So.2d 539, 544 (Fla.1982) (quoting Sparkman v. State ex rel. Scott, 58 So.2d 431, 432 (Fla.1952)) ("Express or implied provisions of the Constitution cannot be altered, contracted or enlarged by legislative enactments."). Accordingly, we reach the same conclusion as to sections 222.29 and 222.30....

...Section 222.29, Florida Statutes (2000), provides: 222.29 No exemption for fraudulent transfers.— An exemption from attachment, garnishment, or legal process provided by this chapter is not effective if it results from a fraudulent transfer or conveyance as provided in chapter 726. Section 222.30, Florida Statutes (2000), provides in pertinent part: 222.30 Fraudulent asset conversions.— (1) As used in this section, "conversion" means every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, of changing or disposing of an asset, such that the products or proceeds of the asset become immune or exe...

...whether the creditor's claim to the asset arose before or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. Several federal courts have concluded that sections 222.29 and 222.30 cannot expand or limit the scope of the exceptions provided in the Constitution....

...As to the homestead exemption, however, the instant case does not enjoy the benefit of one of those avenues. This is not so as to the Florida statute which exempts annuities. Fla.Stat. § 222.14. This statute is part of the chapter which now includes Fla.Stat. § 222.30. § 222.30 provides that any conversion of non-exempt assets to exempt assets is a fraudulent asset conversion if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditor. Although § 222.30 is not directly applicable to the present case, it has been stated that "the enactment of [Fla.Stat.] § 222.30 did little to alter the law....

...Peterson et al., Is the Homestead Subject to the Statute of Fraudulent Asset Conversions?, Fla.B.J., Dec., 1994, at 15. See also Fla.Stat. § 222.29 (1993) and Fla. Stat. § 726.105(a) (1987) et seq. (relating to fraudulent transfers). While not directly applicable, these legislative efforts lend support to the position that § 222.30 reflects the trend of the law prior to 1993. While it can be and has been argued that Fla.Stat. § 222.30 would not have been necessary if the law was such before its enactment, that argument has little support....

...laws. 76 So.2d 792, 793-94 (Fla.1954). Further, if indeed "it is universally held that the exemption is designed for the honest debtor," and if "proof of fraud" operates as a permanent brake upon misuse of the exemption, then the view that Fla.Stat. § 222.30 *891 reflected existing law when passed seems quite persuasive....

...a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor's claim to the asset arose before or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. 35 Fla. Stat. § 222.30 (2)....

...this fact alone that, prior to the amendment's enactment, the Florida legislature did not intend a remedy to exist for fraudulent transfer of funds from non-exempt to exempt status; in fact, at least one court has held that, prior to the adoption of § 222.30, the statutory provision at issue in this case, § 726.105, governed any type of fraudulent transfer including those transfers resulting in exempt funds....

...empt annuity one day before final judgment entered against the debtors in a pending lawsuit. In reversing the bankruptcy court's order overruling the trustee's objection to the debtors' claimed annuity exemption, the district court noted: 37 Because Section 222.30 only applies to a transfer or conversion occurring on or after October 1, 1993, and the Annuity purchase in this case occurred prior to this date, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that: 38 At the time this case was initiated, there was n...

...Florida Statutes § 726.105 and § 726.108, effective at the time of the Annuity purchase, would appear to enable Ameritrust to avoid the transfer or Annuity purchase. 40 Id. at 552 (internal citation omitted). 41 We conclude, as did the district court in Davidson, that prior to the adoption of § 222.30, § 726.105 governed allegations of fraudulent transfers regardless of whether the challenged transfers resulted in exempt assets....

...Given the tension in the decisional law, identified earlier, concerning the absolute nature of exemptions and the possibility of distinguishing the act of transferring funds from their eventual exempt status, thereby avoiding transfers that create exemptions, we construe § 222.30 to be an effort by the legislature to provide a clearer, more direct response to fraudulent transfers of the sort alleged in this case. Moreover, § 222.30 expressly adopts the definitional section from § 726 "unless the application of a definition would be unreasonable." Fla. Stat. § 222.30 (1). This explicit cross-referencing of the two statutory provisions further suggests not only that they are to be read in tandem but, more importantly, that § 222.30 is a subset of the causes of action outlined in § 726. We determine that the legislative amendment embodied in § 222.30 does not preclude reliance on § 726.105 regarding causes of action that accrued prior to the amendment's enactment....

...We hold that (1) the Levines' purchase of annuities was a "transfer" under the pertinent Florida law; (2) Fla. Stat. § 726.105 properly was invoked and relied upon to challenge the nature of the transfer; (3) the amendment to Florida's statutory scheme regarding the fraudulent conversion of assets embodied in Fla. Stat. § 222.30 does not necessarily suggest that no remedy for transfer of assets from non-exempt to exempt status for the purpose of defrauding a creditor existed prior to the enactment of the amendment in 1993; (4) the trustee is not precluded from fili...

...Barker was decided in the context of annuities which are also exempt under Florida statutory law. The issue of homestead property was not specifically addressed in Barker. Subsequent to the transfer at issue in Barker, the Florida legislature enacted Fla.Stat. § 222.29 and § 222.30....

...727. In addition, Florida law provides a state law remedy effective on October 1, 1993, for conversion of non-exempt assets to exempt assets where the conversion is performed with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor. See Fla. Stat.Ann. § 222.30 (West 1993)....

...her exceptions, specifically an exception relating to the fraudulent transfer of non-exempt property into exempt property. In this connection it should be pointed out that Fla.Stat. § 222.14 *309 is part of the Chapter which also includes Fla.Stat. § 222.30....

...made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor. While it is true that the Statute technically does not apply to the transaction under consideration, i.e. the purchase of the annuities, it has been stated that the enactment of Fla.Stat. § 222.30 did little to alter the existing law and it was designed merely to codify a long line of authorities eliminating any doubt there may have been as to the law....

...contending that Debtor's Ponte Vedra house does not qualify as homestead under the Florida Constitution, and the homestead status of the Ponte Vedra house arose from fraudulent conversion, and is therefore not exempt under Fla.Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30....

...issue is whether an otherwise valid homestead exemption can be disallowed upon a finding that Debtor converted the house from a non-exempt status to an exempt status to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. The Receiver and Trustee relied on Fla.Stat. § 222.30(1)(2) [1] to support their contention that the Court should disallow Debtor's homestead exemption....

...The court further stated that Fla.Stat. § 222.29-.30 bar homestead exemptions resulting from fraudulent asset conversions. Id. Yet, other courts have held that a homestead exemption will not be disallowed even upon a finding of fraud under Fla.Stat. 222.30....

...Brown, 165 B.R. at 514; Frederick, 183 B.R. at 970-71. So, if the objectors can show that the exemption is being used as an instrument of fraud, then the exemption would be disallowed. The Court does note, however, that it did not rely on Fla.Stat. 222.30 in Brown or Frederick, and is not doing so here....

...CONCLUSION Receiver's and Trustee's objections to Debtor's claim of exemptions as to the Ponte *1010 Vedra house, IRAs, and the proceeds of the annuity contract are overruled and the exemptions are allowed. The Court will enter an Order consistent with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. NOTES [1] Section 222.30 of the Florida Statutes provides, in relevant part, that: (1) As used in this section, "conversion" means every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, of changing or disposing of an asset, such that the products or proceeds...

...by law from the claims of a creditor of the debtor is a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor's claim to the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. Fla.Stat. § 222.30(1)-(2) (1996)....

...The converted funds are property of the bankruptcy estate subject to recovery by the Trustee. NOTES [1] Fla.Stat.Ann. § 222.29 No exemption for fraudulent transfers.— An exemption . . . is not effective if it results from a fraudulent transfer or conveyance as provided in chapter 726. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 222.30(2) Fraudulent asset conversions.— Any conversion by a debtor of an asset that results in the proceeds of the asset becoming exempt by law from the claims of a creditor of the debtor is a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor ....

...000 that was at one time in the Sun Bank savings account. Because the Plaintiffs did not explore this area, the Court can only assume that the omission of this account from the schedules was immaterial. [2] Effective October 1, 1993, Florida Statute Section 222.30 provides that any conversion of nonexempt assets to exempt assets is a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditor....

...FBC is not a perfected judgment creditor entitled to relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). FBC's Motion for Relief From Stay (Doc. 13) is due to be denied. [7] FBC's objection to Debtor's homestead exemption does not concern the transfer of nonexempt assets to exempt property. As FBC concedes, Section 222.30, Fla.Stat., is not implicated....

...As to this objection, the Bankruptcy Court specifically found that: At the time this case was initiated, there was no Florida law providing that a debtor forfeits her right to an exemption as a consequence for fraudulent conduct. [in a footnote, the Bankruptcy Court refers to Florida Statute 222.30, which applies to conversions on or after October 1, 1993....

...o "opt out" of the exemptions provided by federal law and choose instead to set their own allowable exemptions). In overruling Plaintiffs' objection to Debtors' claimed Annuity exemption, the Bankruptcy Court focused on the fact that Florida Statute § 222.30 was not in effect at the time the Annuity was purchased. Florida Statute § 222.30(2) provides that: *552 Any conversion by a debtor of an asset that results in the proceeds of the asset becoming exempt by law from the claims of a creditor of the debtor is a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor's claim to the asset arose before or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. Because Section 222.30 only applies to a transfer or conversion occurring on or after October 1, 1993, and the Annuity purchase in this case occurred prior to this date, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that: At the time this case was initiated, there was no F...

...the fraudulent transfer of non-exempt property into exempt property, whether or not the funds were fraudulently obtained. The Statute which exempts annuities is Florida Statutes Chapter 222.14. This Statute is part of the Chapter which now includes § 222.30. Section 222.30 provides that any conversion of non-exempt assets to exempt assets is a fraudulent asset conversion if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditor....

...Lang, 898 F.Supp. 883 (S.D.Fla.1995); Clements, 194 B.R. at 925; Meininger v. Miller (In re Miller), 188 B.R. 302 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1995). The Trustee argues that the Florida legislature intended to change this rule by enacting Florida Statutes § 222.29 and § 222.30....

...or 10:00 a.m. on February 16, 1999. A separate order consistent with this order shall be entered. DONE AND ORDERED. NOTES [1] Unless specified otherwise, all references to statutory sections refer to Title 11 of the United States Code. [2] Fla.Stat. § 222.30 simply provides that the protection of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act applies to asset conversions as well....

...07-56 (Asserting exceptions to discharge pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4)), Adv. Pro. No. 07-57 (Asserting claims under Bankruptcy Code Sections 544, 547, and 548, Chapter 726 of Florida Statutes, and Florida Statute Section 56.29, and Florida Statute Section 222.30) (pertaining to fraudulent asset conversions); Adv. Pro. No. 07-59 (Asserting action to avoid fraudulent transfers/asset conversions between spouses pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 541, 544, 548, and Chapter 726 of the Florida Statutes, Florida Statute Section 56.29, Florida Statute Section 222.30, and seeking a declaratory judgment, a resulting trust, equitable lien and/or constructive trust, and an accounting); Adv. Pro. No. 07-60 (Asserting action to avoid fraudulent transfers/asset conversions between spouses pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 541, 544, 548, and Chapter 726 of the Florida Statutes, Florida Statute Section 56.29, and Florida Statute Section 222.30, and seeking a declaratory judgment, a resulting trust, equitable lien and/or constructive trust, and an accounting); and, Adv....

...Henry Yusem testified that the entirety of these monies was lost in a bad investment in foreign currency. SFWMD filed this suit against Henry Yusem and Judith Yusem alleging that Henry Yusem engaged in a fraudulent asset conversion in violation of section 222.30, Florida Statutes (1997), and Chapter 726, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...Cohen, Law Offices of David S. Cohen, Orlando, for Appellee, Jonathan Alper. THOMPSON, C.J. The order dismissing Bankfirst's claim against UBS Paine Webber, Thomas Lavecchia, Jonathan Alper, and Mark Koteen is affirmed based on our conclusion that neither section 222.30 nor chapter 726, Florida Statutes, creates a cause of action against a party who allegedly assists a debtor in a fraudulent conversion or transfer of property, where the person does not come into possession of the property....

...urnishings owned with his wife as tenants-by-the-entireties through an adversary proceeding to which Hill's wife may be made a party. B. THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION 7 Compare 11 U.S.C. § 548 with Fla. Stat. chs. 726.105, 222.29, and 222.30. 12  The exemption of a debtor’s homestead from process in Florida is constitutionally protected....

...18 employed as an instrumentality of fraud.” Id. Applying Tramel, courts continue to reach inapposite conclusions, and, thus, the issue remains unresolved.12 Similarly, courts are split regarding the impact of Fla. Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30. In 1993, the Florida legislature amended the Florida Code specifically to make the conversion of a non-exempt asset into an exempt asset with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditors a fraudulent asset conversion. See Fla. Stat. § 222.30(2).13 Courts have spilt as to whether this statute is applicable to the homestead conversion....

...§727(a)(2)(A) when the “[d]ebtor who clearly by law is entitled to convert nonexempt assets to exempt assets did so in this case with a fraudulent intent”); In re Hendricks, 237 B.R. at 826; In re Young, 235 B.R. at 671. 13 Fla. Stat. §222.30(2) states in pertinent part” Any conversion by a debtor of an asset that results in the proceeds of the asset becoming exempt by law from the claims of a creditor of the debtor is a fraudulen...

...delay, or defraud the creditor. 19 exemptions within Fla. Stat. Ch. 222 and statutory laws cannot impair constitutional rights) with In re Thomas, 172 B.R. at 674 (holding that §§ 222.29 and 222.30 bar homestead exemptions resulting from fraudulent asset conversions). While Fla. Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30 were not in effect at the time of this case, we have previously concluded that §222.30 was “an effort to provide a clearer, more direct response to fraudulent transfers” of the sort at issue here. Levine, 134 F.3d at 1053. Therefore, transfers which would be avoidable as fraudulent under §§ 222.29 and 222.30 were also previously avoidable under § 726.105....

...EXEMPT A FLORIDA HOMESTEAD, WHERE THE DEBTOR ACQUIRED THE HOMESTEAD USING NON-EXEMPT FUNDS WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT OF HINDERING, DELAYING, OR DEFRAUDING CREDITORS IN VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 726.105 OR FLA. STAT. §§ 222.29 and 222.30? The phrasing of this certified question is not intended to limit the Supreme Court’s consideration of the various issues posed by this case....

...ontracted for house, field or other labor performed on the realty, the following property owned by a natural person: (1) a homestead. . . . FLA. CONST. art. X, § 4(a)(1). [2] Courts are split regarding the impact of Florida Statutes §§ 222.29 and 222.30. See FLA.STAT.ANN. §§ 222.29 and 222.30 (West 1999). In 1993, the Florida legislature amended the Florida Code specifically to make the conversion of a non-exempt asset into an exempt asset with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditors a fraudulent asset conversion. See FLA.STAT.ANN. § 222.30(2) (West 1999)....

...at 824-825 (finding § 222.29 inapplicable to homestead exemption because statutory laws cannot impair constitutional rights and, by its terms, it only applies to exemptions within § 222), with Thomas, 172 B.R. at 674 (holding that §§ 222.29 and 222.30 bar homestead exemptions resulting from fraudulent asset conversions).

...CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The burden is on a creditor who objects to a debtor's claim of exemption to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor is not entitled to the exemption claimed. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 4003(c) (2005); See also In re Ehnle, 124 B.R. 361, 363 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1991). Section 222.30 of the Florida Statutes provides that "[a]ny conversion by a debtor of an asset that results in the proceeds of the asset becoming exempt by law from the claims of a creditor of the debtor is a fraudulent asset conversion as to the cre...

...ore or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor." A debtor's claim of exemption for an exemption acquired through a fraudulent asset conversion will be disallowed. Section 222.30 adopts the definitional section from Florida Statutes § 726, "unless the application of a definition would be unreasonable"....

...Finally, Jennings contends that if he had been advised by Quarles & Brady to convert non-exempt assets to exempt assets, he would have purchased a much larger annuity and would not have been left with almost $700,000 in non-exempt assets when he filed bankruptcy. However, as Maxfield points out § 222.30 does not contain a size limitation on avoiding a fraudulent transfer conversion....

...See § 222.14, Fla. Stat. (2015). However, the statutory protection is not absolute. Section 222.29, Florida Statutes (2015), removes -the statutory protection if the exemption results from - a fraudulent transfer or conveyance as provided in chapter 726. Similarly, section 222.30, Florida Statutes (2015), removes property from the statutory exemption if a conversion by the debtor resulted in the property becoming exempt....

...gainst him in May of 1992. Thus, the trustee argues, the debtor purchased the insurance policy with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the IRS. The trustee argues that these facts constitute a fraudulent asset conversion pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 222.30, and thus, the insurance policy may not be claimed as exempt....

...In addition to flying in the face of reason, the trustee's argument must fail for two reasons: 1) having just concluded that a trustee's interest in a life insurance policy extends only to the cash surrender value, which is not present in this case, there is nothing left for the trustee to object to, and 2) Fla. Stat. § 222.30 applies only to transactions occurring on or after October 1, 1993....

...to vacate and dissolve the order in garnishment upon authority of ... Leesburg...." ). We do not address whether Appellee is entitled to the money in the account on the ground that Appellant engaged in a fraudulent transfer of his trust funds under § 222.30, Florida Statutes, as this issue has yet to be determined and is presently pending in the trial court....

...Hyman, the Chapter 7 Trustee (Trustee) of the estate of Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. (SWS). Ms. Harrold is the only named defendant in the Complaint filed the Trustee. The Complaint under attack sets forth four claims. The claim in Count I is based on Fla. Stat. § 222.30 and is based on the allegation that Ms....

...own debt owed to Ms. Harrold as a requirement to the agreement reached between them in their dissolution proceeding. The Complaint as framed must be dismissed in part for the following reasons. In Count I, Trustee seeks relief pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 222.30, which is the statute that provides relief to a party who claims that a debtor fraudulently converted non-exempt assets into exempt assets....

...The Court also found that the transfers were constructively fraudulent. The Court also found that the transfers of assets from Mr. Gosman into ownership between Mr. Gosman and Mrs. Gosman as tenants by the entireties violated the Florida Fraudulent Asset Conversion Statute, Section 222.30, Florida Statutes....

...8 that a conversion of nonexempt assets to exempt assets is a fraudulent conversion if made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors); In re Thomas, 172 B.R. 673, 674 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1994) (applying § 222.30 in a creditor’s successful objection to a claimed homestead exemption)....

...4 Fla.Stat. § 220.30 (providing that a conversion of nonexempt assets to exempt assets is a fraudulent conversion if made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors); In re Thomas, 172 B.R. 673, 674 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1994) (applying § 222.30 in a creditor's successful objection to a claimed homestead exemption)....

...ertificate. However, Triple Check contends that Debtor converted the proceeds from directly invoiced clients, client lists and computer software into Tax Advantage and that the claim of exemption of the stock is therefore void pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 222.30. Fla. Stat. § 222.30 provides in pertinent part: Fraudulent asset conversions (1) As used in this section, "conversion" means every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, of changing or disposing of an asset, such that the products or proceeds of th...

...ptcy estate, available to satisfy Hill's individual creditors, and, consequently, Hill's wife's property interest in the home furnishings will be effectively terminated. 7 Compare 11 U.S.C. § 548 with Fla. Stat. chs. 726.105, 222.29, and 222.30.  The exemption of a debtor's homestead from process in Florida is constitutionally protected....

...e employed as an instrumentality of fraud." Id. Applying Tramel, courts continue to reach inapposite conclusions, and, thus, the issue remains unresolved.12 Similarly, courts are split regarding the impact of Fla. Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30. In 1993, the Florida legislature amended the Florida Code specifically to make the conversion of a non-exempt asset into an exempt asset with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditors a fraudulent asset conversion. See Fla. Stat. § 222.30(2).13 Courts have spilt as to whether this statute is applicable to the homestead conversion. 12 Adding to the confusion in this area is the conclusion of some courts that, although a debtor's fraudulent conversion of non-exempt as...

...§ 727(a)(2)(A) when the "[d]ebtor who clearly by law is entitled to convert nonexempt assets to exempt assets did so in this case with a fraudulent intent"); In re Hendricks, 237 B.R. at 826; In re Young, 235 B.R. at 671. 13 Fla. Stat. § 222.30(2) states in pertinent part: Any conversion by a debtor of an asset that results in the proceeds of the asset becoming exempt by law from the claims of a creditor of the debtor is a fraudulent asset Compare In re Hendricks, 237 B.R....

...at 824-825 (finding § 222.29 inapplicable to the homestead exemption because, by its terms, it only applies to exemptions within Fla. Stat. Ch. 222 and statutory laws cannot impair constitutional rights) with In re Thomas, 172 B.R. at 674 (holding that §§ 222.29 and 222.30 bar homestead exemptions resulting from fraudulent asset conversions). While Fla. Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30 were not in effect at the time of this case, we have previously concluded that § 222.30 was "an effort to provide a clearer, more direct response to fraudulent transfers" of the sort at issue here. Levine, 134 F.3d at 1053. Therefore, transfers which would be avoidable as fraudulent under §§ 222.29 and 222.30 were also previously avoidable under § 726.105....

...9.150: DOES ARTICLE X, SECTION 4 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION EXEMPT A FLORIDA HOMESTEAD, WHERE THE DEBTOR ACQUIRED THE HOMESTEAD USING NON-EXEMPT FUNDS WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT OF HINDERING, DELAYING, OR DEFRAUDING CREDITORS IN VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 726.105 OR FLA. STAT. §§ 222.29 and 222.30? The phrasing of this certified question is not intended to limit the Supreme Court's consideration of the various issues posed by this case....

...er an action for civil conspiracy may exist noting the dissent in BankFirst v. UBS Paine Webber, Inc., 842 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). There, the majority in BankFirst held that the Florida Statutes covering fraudulent asset conversion (F.S. § 222.30) and fraudulent transfers (F.S....

...361, 363 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1991). Cadle asserts the Jackson policy is not exempt under Florida Statute § 222.14, because Debtors fraudulently converted non-exempt funds to exempt funds by paying annual premium payments to the Jackson policy. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 222.30 assets are not exempt if a debtor executes a fraudulent conversion of nonexempt assets to exempt assets. [2] Section *202 222.30 adopts the definitional section from Florida Statutes § 726, "unless the application of a definition would be unreasonable." This cross-referencing of the two statutory provisions suggests that they are to be read in tandem....

...Therefore, pursuant to Florida Statute § 222.14 the Jackson policy is exempt. The Court will enter a separate order in accordance with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. NOTES [1] The single premium rider is not at issue due to the fact that it has a zero balance. [2] Section 222.30 provides the following: (1) As used in this section, "conversion" means every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, of changing or disposing of an asset, such that the products or proceeds of the asset become immune or exe...

...is a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor's claim to the asset arose before or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. FLA. STAT. 222.30 (1993).

...Rensin's creditors may seek payment from any trust assets that could be paid to him even if he could not require such payment. In count II of the complaint, the plaintiff objects to Mr. Rensin's exemption of the Regions Bank account and any payments from the annuities. Relying on Fla. Stat. § 222.30 , the plaintiff argues that the assets of the Joren Trust, including the annuities, and any funds in the Regions Bank checking account, are not exempt assets as they are the product of fraudulent conversion of non-exempt assets into exempt assets....

...The plaintiff argues that, even if the variable annuity would otherwise be exempt, it was purchased using Mr. Rensin's non-exempt funds at a time when he was subject to significant claims, including the FTC judgment, and so the variable annuity resulted from a fraudulent transfer. Mr. Rensin argues that Fla. Stat. § 222.30 does not apply, because Mr....

...raudulent or inappropriate behavior. It is hard to see how this is the case. The statute protects payment rights under annuity contracts. The Florida legislature determined that, except when acquired with fraudulent intent in violation of Fla. Stat. § 222.30 or if the exemption results from a fraudulent transfer or conveyance in violation of Fla....

...tract. If section 222.14 is interpreted to require the owner of the annuity contract to also be a Florida citizen or resident, this would greatly restrict the selection of a trustee, without any valid purpose. In any case, Fla. Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30 address the concerns raised by the plaintiff by limiting the effect of the exemption provisions where fraud is involved. The annuity contracts are not subject to Fla. Stat. § 222.30 . Florida Statutes § 222.30 is aimed at preventing a person who is liable to a creditor from taking an asset owned by that person and converting it into a form that is immune from collection, specifically to stymie the creditor. Section 222.30(2) provides: "Any conversion by a debtor of an asset that results in the proceeds of the asset becoming exempt by law from the claims of a creditor of the debtor is a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor...

...e debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor." A creditor harmed by fraudulent asset conversion may seek avoidance of the conversion, attachment of the asset converted, and other equitable relief. Fla. Stat. § 222.30 (3)....

...Rensin caused the Joren Trustee to use funds long held in the Joren Trust to purchase the fixed annuity, also in an attempt to remove the assets from the reach of his creditors. The plaintiff claims that these conversions of assets to the fixed and variable annuities are subject to remedies under section 222.30. While the plaintiff presents a seemingly compelling review of the facts under the traditional badges of fraud, there are fatal errors in the plaintiff's analysis. Section 222.30 requires a "conversion by a debtor." A "conversion" under this statute involves an intentional act with the power to follow through....

...Rensin asked the Joren Trustee to purchase either of the annuities. To the contrary, the only relevant evidence is that Mr. Rensin objected to the purchase of the annuity contracts. Even if Mr. Rensin had *884 asked the Joren Trustee to purchase the annuities, this would not be sufficient for relief under section 222.30....

...e no weight to past practice. Miller v. Kresser , 34 So.3d 172 , 175-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In other words, because Mr. Rensin had no legal power to require the Joren Trustee to buy the annuities, he could not have converted non-exempt assets under section 222.30. This is a moot point as, here, the only relevant evidence shows that Mr. Rensin did not cause the Joren Trustee to purchase the annuities. Nor does Mr. Rensin's deposit of the $ 350,000 into the Joren Trust fit within the requirements of section 222.30. When Mr. Rensin took his non-exempt personal funds and deposited them into the Joren Trust, this did not result in the funds becoming "exempt by law from the claims of a creditor" as required under the statute. Section 222.30 provides an exception from the exemptions otherwise granted under chapter 222. There is no provision of chapter 222 that would protect assets in the Joren Trust. Since a deposit into the Joren Trust would not result in the funds becoming protected under any provision of chapter 222, section 222.30 does not apply. Even if section 222.30 is read more broadly, to cover any conversion resulting in an asset becoming no longer subject to execution by creditors, all Joren Trust assets are subject to claims of Mr....

...f $ 350,000 into the Joren Trust, but rather focused on the use of those funds to acquire the variable annuity. Because the Joren Trustee purchased the fixed annuity, and not Mr. Rensin, the plaintiff argues that the Joren Trust itself is covered by section 222.30. The plaintiff contends that the defined terms in section 222.30 apply to the Joren Trustee and its creditors, including the FTC and the bankruptcy estate. Even assuming this is correct, for section 222.30 to apply, the conversion of assets must result in the assets becoming exempt from creditors of the converting party....

...But the Joren Trust is not a Florida citizen or resident and so obtains no protection under section 222.14. Nor does any other provision of chapter 222 protect the Joren Trustee. In other words, the Joren Trusts's purchase of the fixed annuity did not result in the asset becoming protected from creditors of the Joren Trust. Section 222.30 does not apply. The annuities are not subject to avoidance, attachment, or equitable remedies under Fla. Stat. § 222.30 ....

...The Trustee objected to these claims of exemptions contending that: (i) the Boat Slip, household goods and furnishings, and Stock are not owned as tenants by the entireties; (ii) the Highway Avenue Property and Picketville Property are not exempt pursuant to §§ 222.29 and 222.30, Florida Statutes; (iii) the Mutual Fund Account is not exempt under Florida Statutes, § 222.14; and (iv) pursuant to 11 U.S.C....

...Mathews' joint checking account and then used to pay off their Homestead mortgage was a transfer of non-exempt property to exempt property in violation of § 522( o ). The Trustee asserts that the original $231,952.23 check was not exempt because the conversion was fraudulent pursuant to Florida Statutes, § 222.30(2) [5] ....

...including the Boat Slip, the Homestead, and the Picketville and Highway Avenue properties. The Court finds that the loan proceeds were tenants by the entireties property, as the evidence presented by the Trustee does not warrant a violation of F.S. § 222.30(2)....

...the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor and, that the debtor could not exempt, or that portion that the debtor could not exempt, under subsection (b), if on such date the debtor had held the property so disposed of. [5] Florida Statutes, § 222.30(2) states: Any conversion by a debtor of an asset that results in the proceeds of the asset becoming exempt by law from the claims of a creditor of the debtor is a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor's claim to the asset arose before or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 222.30(2) (West 2005).

...d, leasing it out to tenants much of that time). For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Creditors' Objection to Exemption is overruled. NOTES [1] A fraudulent asset conversion, for which a creditor may obtain relief under Fla.Stat. § 222.30, occurs when a debtor's conversion of an asset results in its proceeds becoming exempt....

...Consequently, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement. Shortly thereafter, on July 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant adversary complaint (3:09-ap-344-JAF, Doc. 1), seeking a determination that the $80,000 payment to Citibank was a fraudulent asset conversion pursuant to section 222.30 of the Florida Statutes....

...a money judgment against Defendant is permissible under the facts of the case, Defendant has failed to establish that the Court committed a clear error of law. 14 Even Defendant acknowledges that Havo-co is silent on the specific question of whether section 222.30 of the Florida Statutes supports a money judgment in this instance (see Doc....

...The Court incorporates its reasoning contained in the memorandum opinion on remand (Doc. 85). . The Court utilized Hansard Const. Corp. v. Rite Aid of Fla., Inc., 783 So.2d 307, 308-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), in interpreting the statutory language contained in Fla. Stat. § 222.30(3)(c)(2) — i.e., in interpreting the phrase "any other relief the circumstances may require” (Doc....

...ch documents as a custodian for Debtor or for record keeping purposes. [3] First Union alleges that non-exempt assets were converted to exempt assets with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors and are therefore not exempt under FLA. STAT. § 222.30 (West 2000)....

...NOTES [1] Specifically: Counts II, III, and IV are fraudulent transfer claims pursuant to Florida Statutes §§ 726.105(1)(a), 726.105(1)(b), and 726.106(1), respectively; Count V is a claim for fraudulent asset conversion pursuant to Florida Statutes § 222.30(2)....

...conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor's claim to the asset arose before or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. Fla. Stat. § 222.30(2). Although the language of this provision, enacted after the events giving rise to this action occurred, embraces the allegations set forth in the trustee's complaint, we decline to assume or infer from this fact alone that, prior to the amendment's enactment, the Florida legislature did not intend a remedy to exist for fraudulent transfer of funds from non-exempt to exempt status; in fact, at least one court has held that, prior to the adoption of § 222.30, the statutory provision at issue in this case, § 726.105, governed any type of fraudulent transfer including those transfers resulting in exempt funds....

...uity one day before final judgment entered against the debtors in a pending lawsuit. In reversing the bankruptcy court's order overruling the trustee's objection to the debtors' claimed annuity exemption, the district court noted: Because Section 222.30 only applies to a transfer or conversion occurring on or after October 1, 1993, and the Annuity purchase in this case occurred prior to this date, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that: At the time this c...

...Florida Statutes § 726.105 and § 726.108, effective at the time of the Annuity purchase, would appear to enable Ameritrust to avoid the transfer or Annuity purchase. Id. at 552 (internal citation omitted). We conclude, as did the district court in Davidson, that prior to the adoption of § 222.30, § 726.105 governed allegations of fraudulent transfers regardless of whether the challenged transfers resulted in exempt assets....

...Given the tension in the decisional law, identified earlier, concerning the absolute nature of exemptions and the possibility of distinguishing the act of transferring funds from their eventual exempt status, thereby avoiding transfers that create exemptions we construe § 222.30 to be an effort by the legislature to provide a clearer, more direct remedy to fraudulent transfers of the sort alleged in this case. Moreover, § 222.30 expressly adopts the definitional section from § 726 "unless the application of a definition would be unreasonable." Fla. Stat. § 222.30(1). This explicit cross-referencing of the two statutory provisions further suggests not only that they are to be read in tandem but, more importantly, that § 222.30 is a subset of the causes of action outlined in § 726. We determine that the legislative amendment embodied in § 222.30 does not preclude reliance on § 726.105 regarding causes of action that accrued prior to the amendment's enactment. D....

...We hold that (1) the Levines' purchase of annuities was a "transfer" under the pertinent Florida law; (2) Fla. Stat. § 726.105 properly was invoked and relied upon to challenge the nature of the transfer; (3) the amendment to Florida's statutory scheme regarding the fraudulent conversion of assets embodied in Fla. Stat. § 222.30 does not necessarily suggest that no remedy for transfer of assets from non-exempt to exempt status for the purpose of defrauding a creditor existed prior to the enactment of the amendment in 1993; (4) the trustee is not precluded from f...

...conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor’s claim to the asset arose before or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. Fla. Stat. § 222.30(2). Although the language of this provision, enacted after the events giving rise to this action occurred, embraces the allegations set forth in the trustee’s complaint, we decline to assume or infer from this fact alone that, prior to the amendment’s enactment, the Florida legislature did not intend a remedy to exist for fraudulent transfer of funds from non-exempt to exempt status; in fact, at least one court has held that, prior to the adoption of § 222.30, the statutory provision at issue in this case, § 726.105, governed any type of fraudulent transfer including those transfers resulting in exempt funds....

...20 entered against the debtors in a pending lawsuit. In reversing the bankruptcy court’s order overruling the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ claimed annuity exemption, the district court noted: Because Section 222.30 only applies to a transfer or conversion occurring on or after October 1, 1993, and the Annuity purchase in this case occurred prior to this date, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that:...

...the Annuity purchase, would appear to enable Ameritrust to avoid the transfer or Annuity purchase. Id. at 552 (internal citation omitted). We conclude, as did the district court in Davidson, that prior to the adoption of § 222.30, § 726.105 governed allegations of fraudulent transfers regardless of whether the challenged transfers resulted in exempt assets....

...Given the tension in the decisional law, 21 identified earlier, concerning the absolute nature of exemptions and the possibility of distinguishing the act of transferring funds from their eventual exempt status, thereby avoiding transfers that create exemptions we construe § 222.30 to be an effort by the legislature to provide a clearer, more direct remedy to fraudulent transfers of the sort alleged in this case. Moreover, § 222.30 expressly adopts the definitional section from § 726 “unless the application of a definition would be unreasonable.” Fla. Stat. § 222.30(1). This explicit cross-referencing of the two statutory provisions further suggests not only that they are to be read in tandem but, more importantly, that § 222.30 is a subset of the causes of action outlined in § 726. We determine that the legislative amendment embodied in § 222.30 does not preclude reliance on § 726.105 regarding causes of action that accrued prior to the amendment’s enactment. d....

...was a “transfer” under the pertinent Florida law; (2) Fla. Stat. § 726.105 properly was invoked and relied upon to challenge the nature of the transfer; (3) the amendment to Florida’s statutory scheme regarding the fraudulent conversion of assets embodied in Fla. Stat. § 222.30 does not necessarily suggest that no remedy for transfer of assets from non-exempt to exempt status for the purpose of defrauding a creditor existed prior to the enactment of the 26 amendment in 1993;...

...As in Davidson, at the time of the establishment of the annuity in this case, there was no Florida law providing for the forfeiture of a debtor's right to an exemption as a consequence for fraudulent conduct. As was noted in Davidson, effective October 1, 1993, Florida Statute Section 222.30 provides that any conversion of non-exempt assets to exempt assets is a fraudulent asset conversion....

...The Bankruptcy Court held that at the time of the establishment of the Annuity, there was no applicable Florida law which provided for the forfeiture of Debtors' right to an exemption due to fraudulent conduct. Trustee, however, argues that Florida Statute 222.30 (enacted after the establishment of the Annuity) is a codification of the overwhelming number of cases holding that a Debtors' exemption may be denied for fraudulent conduct....

...In overruling Trustee's objection to Debtors' claimed Annuity exemption, the Bankruptcy Court cited to and relied upon its decision in In re Davidson, 164 B.R. 782 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1994). The Bankruptcy Court in that case, as well as the case at bar, focused on the fact that Florida Statute § 222.30 was not in effect at the time the settlement proceeds were placed into the exempt Annuity. Florida Statute § 222.30(2) provides that: Any conversion by a debtor of an asset that results in the proceeds of the asset becoming exempt by law from the claims of a creditor of the debtor is a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor's claim to the asset arose before or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. Because Section 222.30 only applies to a transfer or conversion occurring on or after October 1, 1993, and the settlement proceeds were placed into the exempt Annuity before this date, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that: As in Davidson, at the time of the e...

...Cadle does not dispute that policy 1 satisfies the requirements of § 222.14 but asserts that most of the cash surrender value of the policy was created by a series of fraudulent transfers or the conversion of non-exempt funds into exempt assets in contravention of §§ 222.29 and 222.30 of the Florida Statutes....

...Debtor Charles Lowery, the owner of the policy and the insured, is a resident of the state of Florida. However, Cadle asserts that most of the cash value of policy 1 was created by a series of fraudulent transfers of the conversion of non-exempt funds into exempt assets in contravention of §§ 222.29 and 222.30 of the Florida Statutes....

...to an exempt asset in In re Barker, 168 B.R. 773, 776 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.1994). In Barker the Court rejected the notion that the Bankruptcy Code permits the disallowance of an otherwise valid exemption. However, the Court pointed to the availability of § 222.30 as a basis for the disallowance of an exemption resulting from the conversion of a nonexempt asset to an exempt asset with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. 2 §§ 222.29 and 222.30 Fla....

...§ 222.29 provides as follows: No exemption for fraudulent transfers An exemption from attachment, garnishment, or legal process provided by this chapter is not effective if it results from a fraudulent transfer or conveyance as provided in chapter 726. Fla. Stat. 222.29. Fla. Stat. § 222.30 provides in pertinent part: Fraudulent asset conversions (1) As used in this section, “conversion” means every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, of changing or disposing of an asset, such that the products or proceeds o...

...a fraudulent asset conversion as to the creditor, whether the creditor’s claim to the asset arose before or after the conversion of the asset, if the debtor made the conversion with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor. Fla. Stat. § 222.30 ....

...The Court finds there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the cash surrender value of policy 1 is the result of a fraudulent transfer or the conversion of non-exempt assets into exempt life insurance and is subject to disallowance pursuant to § 222.29 or § 222.30 of the Florida Statutes....

...xemption of policy 3. Section 222.14 exempts the cash surrender value of life insurance policies from the claims of a creditor of the person whose life is insured. Because the insured, Steven P. Lowery, is not a debtor, § 222.14 is not satisfied. . Section 222.30 was not an available remedy in Barker because the annuities that were the subject of the objection were purchased prior to the effective date of § 222.30.

...e "Motion"). 62 In the Motion, Defendants request judgment in their favor on two counts of the Fraudulent Transfer Proceeding and all claims in the 56.29 Proceeding "as they relate to those transactions that are properly considered conversions under § 222.30, Fla....